Evidence of meeting #33 for Justice and Human Rights in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was slide.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Lynn Barr-Telford  Director, Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics
John Turner  Chief, Policing Services Program, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics
Craig Grimes  Project Manager, Courts Program, Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Art Hanger

I would like to call the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to order. On the agenda today, if you look on the sheets provided, is Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum penalties for offences involving firearms) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.

Our witnesses are from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Ms. Lynn Barr-Telford, Mr. John Turner, and Mr. Craig Grimes. I welcome you to the committee.

I do apologize too. We had a statement in the House and a motion put forward on which there was some discussion and debate, but we are here now.

I assume, Ms. Barr-Telford, you will be presenting. Please proceed then. Thank you.

3:50 p.m.

Lynn Barr-Telford Director, Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present to the committee regarding minimum mandatory sentencing and firearm-related offences.

The data I will present today come from two main sources: data from our uniform crime reporting survey of police-reported crime incidents with which we can speak to overall trends in violent crime and the presence of firearms, firearm homicides, and robberies involving firearms; and data from our courts program that allow us to look at trends in the processing and sentencing of firearms offences.

My colleagues, Mr. John Turner and Mr. Craig Grimes, will assist me in answering any questions you may have.

Turning to the first slide, page 2--

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Art Hanger

Mr. Lemay.

3:50 p.m.

Bloc

Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Chairman, given the fact the witnesses are going to be referring to various important statistics, I would like to ask them if they could speak slowly so that the interpreters may accurately translate their comments. If needed, I will take less time to ask my questions.

Thank you.

3:50 p.m.

Director, Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics

Lynn Barr-Telford

In terms of the overall trend in violent crime, our police-reported data show that there were about 304,000 violent incidents in 2005. The overall violent crime rate in 2005 was similar to the rate we saw in 2004. In general, though, after increasing fairly steadily for 30 years, the violent crime rate has been falling since the mid-1990s. For the most recent year, 2005, however, we did see an increase in what are considered serious violent crimes, such as homicide, attempted murder, serious assault, and robbery.

Based on trend data available from 1998 to 2005, for 63 police services, including Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, Edmonton, Calgary, and the Sûreté du Québec, which is about 51% of the national coverage, we see in the slide that firearms were present in just 2.7% of violent crimes in 2005. And this was down from 4% in 1998.

As we shall see in a subsequent slide, this decline in the presence of firearms in overall violent crime is driven by an ongoing drop in firearm robberies. Robbery is the highest volume offence for the presence of firearms, representing 59% of all violent offences involving a firearm. At the same time, however, we have seen increases between 2004 and 2005 in a number of offences with firearms: homicides, attempted murder, serious assaults, kidnapping, forceable confinement.

With respect to several Criminal Code sections.... Under section 244, the discharge of a firearm with intent, we have seen between 2002 and 2005 an increase of 53% in incidents, from 86 to 132. Under section 85, using a firearm to commit an offence, we've seen a steadily increasing number, from 326 in 2002 to 542 in 2005, an increase of 66%. Under sections 88 to 96, which are various weapons possession offences, we've seen a doubling since 1999, from just over 4,900 to just over 10,500 by 2005.

We'll turn to slide three. This slide shows the use of a firearm or knife by type of violent offence in 2005. It's based on our uniform crime reporting survey 2, which has 71% national coverage. While robberies make up the highest volume offence with the presence of a firearm, we can see that only 12% of robberies overall involved a firearm. While they're lower in volume, we can also see that homicide and attempted murder more frequently involved a firearm, although the weapon of choice for these offences was also frequently a knife. Knives were more frequently used in sexual assaults, assaults, and robbery.

This next slide shows the trend in the overall homicide rate since the mid-1970s. This slide and the remaining ones that show police-reported crime incidents are based on full 100% coverage. The homicide rate has generally been declining since the mid-1970s. So the rate of two homicides per 100,000 population in 2005 was the highest rate, however, since 1996, although it was still 25% lower than 20 years ago.

There were 658 homicides in 2005. This was the second straight year of increase. This increase was driven by an increase in gang-related killings, particularly in Ontario and Alberta. Firearm homicides and homicides committed by youth also increased. You'll see a chart embedded in the graphic, and what it shows is that in international terms the United States' homicide rate is about three times the homicide rate in Canada.

The rate in Canada is somewhat lower than the rate in Sweden and Finland, and it's higher than the rate in France, Australia, England, and Wales.

If you turn to page 5, you'll see that going back to the mid-1970s, the rate of firearm homicides has generally decreased. It's similar to what we saw in the overall trend in homicides. But in more recent years we have seen increases. In 2005 there were 222 firearm homicides, up from 173 in 2004. This was the third straight year of increase. From the slide you can also see that prior to 1985, shootings were much more common than stabbings. Now they each account for about one-third of homicides annually.

Moving to page 6, we've seen that between 1975 and 2005, the type of firearm used in homicides has been changing. Handguns now account for 60% of firearms used in homicides, while rifles and shotguns account for 25%. Prior to 1991, rifles and shotguns were more popular. Handgun homicides have increased from 70 in 1998 to 128 in 2005, although the 1998 number was unusually low.

You can see in slide 7 a comparison of homicide rates and firearm homicide rates in our nine largest cities over the last five years. The highest firearm homicide rates are generally found in the biggest cities, Vancouver and Toronto, while Winnipeg and Edmonton had higher overall homicide rates.

In total, there were almost 29,000 robberies in 2005. The robbery rate was 3% higher than in 2004; however, it was about 15% lower than a decade ago and 25% lower than the 1991 peak. Over half of robberies reported to police in 2005 were committed without a weapon.

As you can see from the graphic, robberies with a firearm have been steadily decreasing, particularly since 1991. As I mentioned earlier, given their high volume, this decrease is responsible for much of the overall drop in the presence of firearms in violent crimes. So firearms were used in 12% of robberies in 2005, while just under one-third involved another type of weapon.

The next few slides present data from our courts program on cases in adult criminal court where the most serious offence in the case was a firearms offence with a four-year mandatory minimum sentence. Our courts data represent eight jurisdictions and approximately 80% of the national caseload.

In 2003-04, there were 380 cases completed in court where the most serious offence was a firearms offence with a mandatory minimum sentence of four years. The four-year mandatory minimum sentence for firearms use is a punishment provision for almost all of 10 offences, and this provision was recorded for 5% of all cases for these offences between 1996-97 and 2003-04. In 2003-04, the 380 cases indicating a firearms punishment provision also represented 5% of all cases for the 10 offences. Thus, firearms represent far less than 1% of the total caseload in adult criminal court, this total caseload being approximately 400,000 cases of the jurisdictions we've presented.

Now, as you can see from slide 9, since the implementation of the mandatory minimum sentences in 1996, the proportion of firearms cases convicted has been falling, from 47% in 1996-97 to 36% in 2003-04. Over this same period, the conviction rate for crimes against the person cases has remained stable, at about 50%.

In cases where a firearms offence was the most serious offence, the average length of prison sentence imposed upon conviction in 2003-04 was 1,639 days--about four and a half years.

Now we turn to slide 10. One of the factors influencing the conviction rate for these offences is the proportion of convicted cases with a guilty plea. For example, there were 137 cases convicted for a firearms offence in 2003-04, of which 107, or 78%, had a final plea of guilty. This chart displays the relationship for firearms, non-firearms, and also for chargeable sections for the 10 offences.

Since the enactment of the four-year mandatory minimum sentence legislation for firearms, the proportion of cases pleading guilty has declined from 92% in 1996-97 to 78% in 2003-04. The proportion of guilty pleas is important because of the impact this has on the length of the court process. Those cases proceeding to trial are known to take longer in the system.

The elapsed time from first to last court appearance for cases in which a firearm offence was the most serious offence in the case has increased from an average of 105 days in 1996-97 to 229 days in 2003-04, an increase of about 118%. These elapsed times are now slightly higher than those for cases in adult criminal court generally. The small number of firearms cases progressing through the court system would, however, have little impact on the overall elapsed times being reported.

The next slide switches from a case perspective to a person perspective in order to examine the number of prior convictions.

In 2003-04 there were 137 firearms cases convicted for an offence with a four-year minimum. From these data, 133 persons can be identified. Seven in 10 of these persons with a convicted firearms case in 2003-04 did not have a prior convicted firearms case where the most serious offence was one of the ten four-year mandatory minimum offences. Thus, only approximately 40 offenders had at least one prior conviction for a four-year minimum firearms offence.

On page 12 you'll see that in addition to the four-year minimum firearms offences, there are a series of offences for which the mandatory minimum sentence is at least one year, and for some offences only if proceeding by way of indictment.

Our court's data showed that few cases were heard in court for Criminal Code sections 85, 95, 96, 99, 100 or 103. The number of these indictable offence cases completed in adult court peaked in 2000-01 at 249 cases and then declined each year, so that in 2003-04, the latest year available, there were 175 cases heard and 76 cases convicted. Approximately 90% of these convictions were concluded through a guilty plea.

In summary, from our police-reported data we saw that total violent crime has generally been declining since 1992. Firearms were present in less than 3% of violent crimes. The presence of firearms in total violent crime was down from 1998-2005. Robberies with a firearm drove this decline. Recent years have seen an increase in firearms present in a number of offences, including homicide and attempted murder.

From our courts data we saw that firearms represent less than 1% of cases heard in adult criminal courts. The proportion of convicted cases in which the most serious offence was a firearms offence with a four-year minimum sentence has been declining, and the proportion of these cases completed with a guilty plea has also declined. Firearms cases take longer to reach completion in court, but the small number of firearms cases has little effect on overall case processing times. Seven in 10 persons convicted of a four-year mandatory minimum offence in 2003-04 had no prior convictions for firearms.

That concludes my presentation, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Art Hanger

Thank you, Ms. Barr-Telford.

Those were interesting stats that you gave us. I do have some questions myself, but I'm going to go to the Liberals first.

Mr. Murphy.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I seem to recall that there was another report. I realize you did this slide for this hearing, but there was another deck that explained with more words. I can understand, coming to a parliamentary committee, just using pictures and graphs is probably good--a little self-deprecation here, guys--but I do recall there being a footnote or an explanation, how a definition of gun crime had been changed regarding whether it was suspected, under investigation, or convicted.

If you have no idea what I'm talking about, I'll have to find it and come back.

You do. Then could you explain that? Which slide is most relevant to it?

4:05 p.m.

Director, Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics

Lynn Barr-Telford

I will actually allow Mr. Turner to explain that, but what I believe you're referring to could be our definition and the way we collect gang-related homicide information data.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

Right. That was it.

4:05 p.m.

John Turner Chief, Policing Services Program, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics

That was a change we made to the wording of our question on the homicide survey for the collection of 2005 data. Do you want the exact wording change?

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

Is there a slide here on gang-related data at all?

4:05 p.m.

Chief, Policing Services Program, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics

John Turner

No, there isn't. We do have some numbers, but there's no slide.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

The deck that had the definitions in it is readily available, then?

November 22nd, 2006 / 4:05 p.m.

Director, Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics

Lynn Barr-Telford

We can provide that.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

Why don't you just do that and I'll not waste my time with it? We're not specifically talking about gang-related violence, yet it seems to be a bit of the spirit behind some of this legislation, to crack down on gun-related crimes and gang-related crimes.

Maybe I will get you to explain that and what effect the change in definition had, the definition of “gang-related” going from “suspected” to “concluded”, or something like that. I believe that was the gist of it.

4:05 p.m.

Chief, Policing Services Program, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics

John Turner

The original question on the homicide survey in 1991, I believe, asked if a homicide was related to gang or organized crime activity. The answer we put, the choice for the police service, was simply yes, no, or unknown.

Since that time, in conversations with a lot of police forces, who are, of course, our respondents, it was determined that perhaps a better way to phrase that question--and we also changed this in our new crime survey for all crimes--would be to add the category of “suspected”. So we have “suspected” organized crime or gang activity; “yes”, which basically means confirmed, definite; and then “no”.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

When was this change made?

4:05 p.m.

Chief, Policing Services Program, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics

John Turner

It was made for 2005 data.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

Gang-related, you say, means sort of concluded, convicted.

4:05 p.m.

Chief, Policing Services Program, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics

John Turner

No, not convicted. This is strictly from police.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

You gave them the choice of yes or no, whereas, as of 2005, you gave them the choice of suspected gang activity. Would that lead to an indication upwards? If you were given the choice of defining, “Is this a gang-related homicide, Mr. Police Force”, it's easier to say “I suspect it to be so”, than to say “I definitely know it is”. So I guess it would lead to a bit of a spike or rise, as of 2005, when it came in.

4:10 p.m.

Chief, Policing Services Program, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics

John Turner

It is possible, and because of the change, we don't know for sure.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

Right. I remember that being kind of important as to our getting to the nuts and bolts of whether gang-related gun violence is on the rise. Specifically when I look at the slide that relates to the cities, slide 7, Vancouver and Toronto have the highest rates of firearm homicides over the past five years. Do we see an increase or a decrease of firearm homicides in any of those cities mentioned there? Do we see a decrease?

4:10 p.m.

Chief, Policing Services Program, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics

John Turner

Between 2001 and 2005?

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

Yes.